Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Garnet. A. McLean
Charles B. Chittum
February 1998
Final Report
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Aviation
Administration
NOTICE
DOT/FAA/AM-98/2
4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date
Performance Demonstrations of Zinc Sulfide and Strontium Aluminate
Photoluminescent Floor Proximity Escape Path Marking Systems February 1998
9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)
Transport category aircraft are required by 14 CFR 25.812 to have emergency lighting systems, including
floor proximity marking systems. Typical floor proximity marking systems installed on transport category
aircraft have been primarily comprised of incandescent luminaries spaced at intervals on the floor, or
mounted on the seat assemblies, along the aisle. The requirement for electricity to power these systems has
made them vulnerable to a variety of problems, including battery and wiring failures, burned-out light bulbs,
and physical disruption caused by vibration, passenger traffic, galley cart strikes, and hull breakage in
accidents. Attempts to overcome these problems have led to the proposal that non-electric photo-
luminescent materials be used in the construction of floor proximity marking systems. To assess the viability
of this proposal, performance demonstrations of systems made with such materials were conducted. It was
found that strontium aluminate photoluminescent marking systems can be effective in providing the
guidance for egress that floor proximity marking systems are intended to achieve; in contrast, zinc sulfide
materials were found to be ineffective.
Unclassified Unclassified
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
Performance Demonstrations of Zinc Sulfide and Strontium Aluminate
Sulfide Photoluminescent Floor Proximity Escape Path Marking Systems
Marking strip
latory personnel as constituting a worst-case system while being led to their seats), then
situation for landing at night. The ambient light escorted into the ACEF cabin by a researcher,
level used to charge the system was 25 lux; this and seated. They would then be told to remove
value was based on the light level expected in a the blindfold, to get up and move into the aisle,
B-737 aircraft during an extended flight late at and then go forward to the next exit. After the
night, where the cabin light levels would be instructions were given and any questions
lowered to aid passenger sleeping. The system answered, groups of 6 or 7 observers were
charging time was set at 30 minutes, which was brought into an ACEF anteroom for visual
shown in the earlier photometric evaluations to dark-adaptation. Heavy curtains were placed
be the minimum time required to achieve a between the anteroom and the entry to the
reasonably complete photo-luminescent system ACEF cabin to prevent stray light from
charge. The lights-out interval after the system entering the cabin when the observers entered
had been charged until the beginning of the the anteroom, as well as to prevent the obser
human observations was set to 150 minutes to vers from seeing the photoluminescent marking
reflect the emergency scenario. Note that exit strips before the formal observation procedure
identifier lights and illuminated signs were also began. Each observer was thusly conditioned
extinguished, and that in conformance with for a period of not less than 10 minutes, after
Advisory Circular (AC) 25.812-lA, clear air was which time the observers entered the ACEF
assumed from floor level upward to a height of 4 cabin individually.
feet. Note that the successive nature of the
Prior to entering the ACEF, each observer individual observations, which lasted about 2
group was given instructions for the demonstra minutes each, allowed a small, incremental
tion. They were informed that they would be amount of dark-adaptation for observers in each
blindfolded (to prevent them from viewing the group. Also because of the successive nature of
the observations, the total number of demonstra observers had completed the demonstrations,
tions required more than an hour to complete. individually-structured, open-ended interviews
Thus, while the period of dark adaptation were conducted to obtain their perceptions
extended for most observers beyond the 1 0 - about the performance of the photoluminescent
minute standard originally chosen, the perfor escape path marking systems.
mance of the photoluminescent marking systems
likewise continued to degrade beyond the so- RESULTS
called worst case scenario chosen. Given the
operational nature of the scenario, this trade-off The performance of the photoluminescent
was considered to be an acceptable procedural marking materials was found to be both better
compromise. and worse than expected. In general, the zinc
After answering any last-minute questions, sulfide materials emitted more light than the
the first observer was blindfolded, then led into analogous materials tested in the original search
the ACEF cabin and seated in the outboard seat for floor proximity marking systems, and their
of a seat row near the back end of the aisle. charging rate was fast. However, their photo-
Upon the start command by the researcher, each luminescent emissions declined at an equally
observer removed the blindfold, left his/her seat quick rate. Conversely, the strontium aluminate
and began the excursion along the aisle toward materials were somewhat slower to charge, but
the forward exit. When he/she had moved along were far superior in the amount of light emitted.
the aisle to the point at which the infrared This performance difference was progressively
camera was located, the camera operator in enhanced as the time from the end of the
structed the observer to stop and return back to charging period increased. These effects were
the starting point. After returning along the revealed in initial evaluations, using the
aisle, the observer was led back into the spectrophotometer, before the demonstrations
anteroom and seated, whereupon the next with human observers began; Table 1 shows the
observer began the process. After each group of results of those initial photometric evaluations.
TABLE 1
Guide-lines
*Strips dark-adapted for 24 hours prior to tests; Strip light levels in foot Lamberts
SA = Strontium Aluminate; ZS = Zinc Sulfide; 1 = 15 min, 2 = 30 min, 3 = 60 min
The additional photometric results in Table 2 are surprisingly turned from the aisle and sat
directly related to the demonstrations with human down by the Type-III overwing exit. While
observers. Subsequent to a 70-hour period of dark none of the instructions had mentioned this
ness conditioning, each of the photoluminescent exit, this latter observer indicated that she
materials was subjected to the 30minute, 25 lux thought a pin hole of light at the Type-III exit
charging regimen and then measured using the was the cue for her to go in that particular
photometer with the lights-out for a period of 150 direction.
minutes. Note that after the demonstrations with All observers later reported that they
human observers were completed using only the could, in fact, see the differences in the photo-
other 3 sample materials, Table 2 test sample FSCM luminescent emergency lighting system levels,
F9503 was provided for comparison by photo- although 47% of the observers responded to
metric analysis. the interview questions with statements re
The performance of the 19 human observers flecting the darkness of the cabin and their
who participated in the test scenario was generally general inability to see the cabin interior.
consistent across groups, as the observers were able Further, they also indicated that more light
to move from their seats and along the aisle with would be beneficial. In contrast, it should be
minimal hesitation, except at the junctions of the noted again that they were generally able to
interleaved photoluminescent material types. There use the system as intended. Table 3 provides
the discontinuities in the luminance level of the the human observer responses.
floor proximity marking system elements appeared
to affect observer performance when they ap DISCUSSION
proached the elements with lower luminance.
However, it also appeared that since the observers The ability of strontium aluminate photo-
could see photoluminescent elements with higher luminescent materials used in floor proximity
luminance farther along the aisle, this effect was escape path marking systems to support
minimized. In fact, only in one case did an observer simulated egress in darkened aircraft cabins
appear to be seriously confused about advancing has been demonstrated. The demonstration
along the aisle; in one other case the observer scenario was designed to model a flight of
TABLE 2
Photoluminescent Strip Light Emission Levels After
Exposure to 25 lux incandescent light for 30 Minutes
* Strips dark soaked for 70 hours prior to tests; Light levels in Foot Lamberts
SA = Strontium Aluminate; ZS = Zinc Sulfide
TABLE 3
Human Observations
How often Did you visually ID What did the Did the emergency What was the
Demo Age do you fly? the emergency emergency light system help you most important
light system? system look move down the thing in the cabin
like? aisle? that guided you
down the aisle?
1. Lighting
White lines down 2 Seat backs
1 37 4x/year YES aisle on both YES ----------
sides Real bright
liked it on both
sides
1 Seats
2. Lights
2 35 1x/3 years YES Green (dull) YES ------------
Confused as to 1. Lights
Solid row of light which direction to 2. Seats
3 35 1x/2 years YES - could tell it was go. Red & Green ----------
the aisle way lights would have Awful dark in the
been much better cabin
Lights - black hole
effect at end of
4 42 1x/year YES Real soft light YES strips
green -----------
I. Lights
2. Seats
5 38 1 x/Year YES R. R. Track YES -----------
Could not really
see anything
1. Lights
2. Seats
6 49 7x/Year YES Looked like an YES ------------
alley
1. Lights
Blue/Green color -----------
7 43 1x/2 Year YES ------------ YES Ran into the back
kind of fuzzy of several seats
during the exit
1. Lights
2. Seats
a 27 5x/year YES 2 white strips YES -----------
Looking for
something red to
ID the exit
1. Lights
2. Seats
9 34 2x/year YES Glowing white YES ------------
strips Hard to focus
eyes
TABLE 3 (Cont’d)
How often Did you visually ID What did the Did the emergency What was the
Demo Age do you fly? the emergency emergency system help you most important
light system? light system move down the thing in the cabin
look like? aisle? that guided you
down the aisle?
Lights
10 35 1x/2 Years YES White line YES -----------
Lights need to be
brighter
1. Lights
11 43 1 x/Year YES Yellow Stripes YES 2 Seats
-----------
1. Lights
2. Seats
12 30 1x/4 Years YES White Strips YES -----------
Dark
Told me where the Lights
Gray/white lines aisle was - didn’t ------------
13 51 2x/year YES bordering the necessarily help Very dark
aisle way me move down the
aisle
Yes - could see Lights
14 27 1 x/1 0 Years YES Green light aisle way clearer ----------
(where it was) Dark
Lights
----------
15 26 3x/Year YES Very dimly lit - YES Didn’t like the
hard to see lighting system
Lights
16 47 2x/Year YES Real pale bluish YES -----------
glow look
Lights
17 21 Never flown YES Greenish Strip YES ------------
Noticed 2 strips
Lights
------------
ia 19 Never flown YES Neon green Yes Noticed 1 strip
black- scary.
Changed answer,
thinks she saw 2
strips
Lights
-----------
19 44 4x/year YES Thin line YES Really dark -
couldn’t see
anything; saw 1
strip
intermediate range, in which the cabin occupants differ from actual human performance. The lack
are afforded no other illumination than that of exit illumination, per se, may have contributed
provided by the floor proximity escape path to the reports of low observer confidence in this
marking system, after which an emergency emergency escape path marking system.
evacuation must be performed. The scenario Providing exit illumination to augment the
further assumed an intact cabin environment, escape path marking system would be a typical
using a total lack of supplemental illumination
situation for operational transport category
to model smoke in the cabin from the ceiling
aircraft; such illumination offers one possible
down to 4 feet above the cabin floor with clear
solution to the mediocre confidence reported, as
air comprising the space from 4 feet down to the
well as any related impediment to movement
floor.
along the aisle that the dim escape path illu
The configuration o f t h e e s c a p e p a t h
mination may have produced. Combining both
marking system a n d t h e t y p e o f photo-
types of marking systems may offer the required
luminescent material in use were important in
escape path marking intended by 14 C F R
the demonstrations. The photoluminescent ma
terials were placed along both sides of the aisle,
25.812(a)(l).
creating a two-sided pathway for observers to
follow. Also important to the obtained results
REFERENCES
was the fact that both the zinc sulfide and stron
1. Federal Aviation Administration, Advisory
tium aluminate photoluminescent materials were
used in an interleaved manner along the aisle.
Circular 25.812-lA, Floor Proximity
Emergency Escape Path Marking, May 22,
This created discontinuities in luminance levels,
since the amount of luminance emitted by the 1989.
zinc sulfide material after the 150-minute lights-
2. Garner, J. D, personal communication, 1997.
out period was noticeably different from that
emitted by the strontium aluminate. These
3. Title 14, C o d e of F e d e r a l R e g u l a t i o n s ,
discontinuities appear to account for most in-
Aeronautics and Space, Vol. 1, U.S.
stances where observers ceased to continue stead
Government Printing Office, Washington,
ily along the aisle, and this suggests that escape
January 1, 1997.
path marking systems that utilize photolumi
nescent materials should be made exclusively
from the relatively brighter strontium alumi
nate.
In absolute terms, both types of photolumi
nescent materials provided levels of luminance
low enough to often cause observers to report
that the cabin was very dark and that more
illumination would be beneficial. Importantly,
however, the strontium aluminate photolumi
nescent materials were shown to provide better
behavioral cues to guide the individual human
observer movements along the aisle toward the
exit. These self-report versus performance effects
appear somewhat at odds, but human reports
have often been shown in such situations to